Genesse Range vs CFO court battle

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I imagine if the range can prove that they are being held to a higher standard than all other ranges of the same size (lenght) in Aberta, then they might have a case. But if the CFO requirement are listed on their templates and are being consistently enforced with all ranges then there isn't much hope. Also if the range wins the court case do they really think the Judge can force or order the CFO to issue a certification?

Your Prez is right, the CFO can not shut down the range. But without certification your liability insurance will be void. In addition to that the use of restricted and prohibited firearms at the range would be an offence under Sec. 93 of the C.C. You can only shoot/use a restricted or prohibited firearm at an approved CFO range. The use of non-restricted would be fine...just like shooting on a cutline.

Even if Genesee is being help up to the same standards as everyone else, you fail to see my point here. They just make it harder and harder for ranges to remain open. Much less for any other range to open up. Installing all those features to prevent a bullet from hitting the ground or for it to go further than intended are simply impossible to implement at every range. That is just going to destroy any opportunity for any more ranges to open up.

Talk to someone who wants to open their own range and see how much red tape and B.S. they have to go through before deciding to give up.

And of course that's not at all what they intend to do, right? Because government always wants best for you. Or they just make a mistake in their good intentions, right?

[calgarychef]

Pepe is absolutely right. Guns don't have to be controlled, if there's no legal place to shoot them anymore then gun owners are hooped.

[Pepe]

Look, as long as there will be firearms, there will be firearms accidents.
Even if you wrap the entire world in bubble wrap, there will be accidents.
Shutting down ranges because they are loud or because their 'might' be a possibility of a ground strike is retarded.

If you want 100% safe firearms, get a plastic gun because even pellet guns can be dangerous.

If we let them stir the pot and close ranges because of possible future accidents, there will eventually be no ranges left to shoot at. Understood?

Btw, the Genesee range doesn't have issues with the restricted handgun range. It's the rifle range beyond 100 meters the CFO closed up.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Even if Genesee is being help up to the same standards as everyone else, you fail to see my point here. They just make it harder and harder for ranges to remain open. Much less for any other range to open up. Installing all those features to prevent a bullet from hitting the ground or for it to go further than intended are simply impossible to implement at every range. That is just going to destroy any opportunity for any more ranges to open up.

Talk to someone who wants to open their own range and see how much red tape and B.S. they have to go through before deciding to give up.

And of course that's not at all what they intend to do, right? Because government always wants best for you. Or they just make a mistake in their good intentions, right?

It sounds like you are the type that believes that a safety inspector's main purpose is to shut down a job site as opposed to keeping them operating. And for the record the CFO didn't shut down Spruce Grove, the courts did.

Why would the CFO have these restrictions in place?

Scenario

Guy is on the 100 meter range and is hit with ricochet from another shooter and looses his eye. Injured guy did nothing wrong as safety glasses are not mandatory. Injured guy now wants to sue the shooter.

Shooter attended the range briefing and was following all the set out rules. Shooter was found to be doing nothing wrong.

The Range executive is taken to task and an investigation shows that they followed all the directions given by the CFO and were a CFO approved range.

Since everyone listened to the rules of the higher authority, the liability of the incident falls on the CFO. In this case, rolls up hill!


The CFO was taken to task after the Homestead incident (and others) and an audit showed that the national templates/standards were not being enforced. If your range executive thinks that a special set of rules are going to draft for your specific range, then I imagine there isn't going to be a lot of long range shooting happening at Genesee in the near future.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I shot service rifle and rifle rodeo at that range and know very well what it's about
You are not going to be able to fight urban sprawl no matter if you are a gun club, RC club or a stock car club.
I have seen many clubs that started in the middle of nowhere and had to close not just gun clubs .
Cat

Edmonton International Speedway...the best race track in Canada and touted as one of the best in North America. Hosted a number of major race series such as the Can Am where Formula 1 stars such as Denis Hulme and Bruce McLaren raced.
Situated just east of Leon's on 137ave.
Gone due to urban sprawl (mid 80's).
To think that the powers that be are going to favor a gun range over housing is ludicrous.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

It sounds like you are the type that believes that a safety inspector's main purpose is to shut down a job site as opposed to keeping them operating. And for the record the CFO didn't shut down Spruce Grove, the courts did.

Why would the CFO have these restrictions in place?

Scenario

Guy is on the 100 meter range and is hit with ricochet from another shooter and looses his eye. Injured guy did nothing wrong as safety glasses are not mandatory. Injured guy now wants to sue the shooter.

Shooter attended the range briefing and was following all the set out rules. Shooter was found to be doing nothing wrong.

The Range executive is taken to task and an investigation shows that they followed all the directions given by the CFO and were a CFO approved range.

Since everyone listened to the rules of the higher authority, the liability of the incident falls on the CFO. In this case, rolls up hill!


The CFO was taken to task after the Homestead incident (and others) and an audit showed that the national templates/standards were not being enforced. If your range executive thinks that a special set of rules are going to draft for your specific range, then I imagine there isn't going to be a lot of long range shooting happening at Genesee in the near future.

I am actually surprised that some ranges do not mandate eye protection. There is always the risk of ricochets, but there is also the risk of a firearm failure, or of a case rupture, and it may not be with your firearm. We had at least three incidents that I know of at my previous range where debris struck the shooter and could have also injured people other than the shooter. I always wear eye protection even if it is not mandatory, and I believe that all ranges should make it mandatory, for liability reasons.

[Pepe]

Look, guns are dangerous. Just like motorcycles, sky diving, and downhill skiing.

In fact the danger is actually part of the fun. If you want safe guns, take out the bolt, pour cement down the barrel, and learn to knit.

There is a danger to everything fun. And trying to take the danger out of everything will just end up taking that activity out completely.

Now of course I don't claim we should ignore safety all together. But if the government treated sky diving and motorcycles the way they treat gun owners, I'd have to sell my Harley.

You can't reasonably eliminate ground strikes, or ricochet. They are part of the hobby just like dying on my Harley is part of the hobby.

If they use safety as an excuse, they can take control of pretty much everything and people like you will think they just love you and care about you.

If you want completely safe guns, you are not going to get them.
And if government decides to make gun ranges safe, that's never going to happen.

Of course we can make gun ranges safer. But where do we stop? Where do we say, okay, now it's overboard. Now it's going too far?

I'm pretty sure when you try to build a berm to stop stray bullets, that berm can never be too big. It would have to cover the entire horizon at 500 feet high, and that still wouldn't stop all the strays.

Sure, be safe, wear muffs, and glasses, don't point your gun at others, etc. ...
But if you want compete safety with guns, you should try knitting instead.
And that's what government wants - completely safe guns - in other words, no guns at all.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Edmonton International Speedway...the best race track in Canada and touted as one of the best in North America. Hosted a number of major race series such as the Can Am where Formula 1 stars such as Denis Hulme and Bruce McLaren raced.
Situated just east of Leon's on 137ave.
Gone due to urban sprawl (mid 80's).
To think that the powers that be are going to favor a gun range over housing is ludicrous.

To expect a farmer or a raceway or a gun range to move on their own dime because urban sprawling reeled up on them is ridiculous.

You build next to a farmer and you don't like smelling manure? Buy him out. But revoking his right to milk his cows is immoral See where I'm getting here?

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by Pepe

To expect a farmer or a raceway or a gun range to move on their own dime because urban sprawling reeled up on them is ridiculous.

You build next to a farmer and you don't like smelling manure? Buy him out. But revoking his right to milk his cows is immoral See where I'm getting here?

Not arguing that...it's 'they were out to get gun owners in Spruce Grove'.
No...urban sprawl killed them...could have been a farmer, race track or whatever.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Look, guns are dangerous. Just like motorcycles, sky diving, and downhill skiing.

In fact the danger is actually part of the fun. If you want safe guns, take out the bolt, pour cement down the barrel, and learn to knit.

There is a danger to everything fun. And trying to take the danger out of everything will just end up taking that activity out completely.

Now of course I don't claim we should ignore safety all together. But if the government treated sky diving and motorcycles the way they treat gun owners, I'd have to sell my Harley.

You can't reasonably eliminate ground strikes, or ricochet. They are part of the hobby just like dying on my Harley is part of the hobby.

If they use safety as an excuse, they can take control of pretty much everything and people like you will think they just love you and care about you.

If you want completely safe guns, you are not going to get them.
And if government decides to make gun ranges safe, that's never going to happen.

Of course we can make gun ranges safer. But where do we stop? Where do we say, okay, now it's overboard. Now it's going too far?

I'm pretty sure when you try to build a berm to stop stray bullets, that berm can never be too big. It would have to cover the entire horizon at 500 feet high, and that still wouldn't stop all the strays.

Sure, be safe, wear muffs, and glasses, don't point your gun at others, etc. ...
But if you want compete safety with guns, you should try knitting instead.
And that's what government wants - completely safe guns - in other words, no guns at all.

You stop when the template/regulations are adhered to. The Genesee range has not been asked to do anything beyond the rules set out by the templates. If the CFO didn't enforce the rules evenly across the board, how would there be any accountability.

"Oh SPFGR, thanks for adhering to the rules even though Genesee was given a buy."

Now if the CFO goes beyond the templates and starts adding conditions that are not required, then cry foul. But if you are only expected to make the same improvement as all other ranges, what's the issue?

Exactly what did the Lawyer say could be the positive outcome of the case?

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Not arguing that...it's 'they were out to get gun owners in Spruce Grove'.
No...urban sprawl killed them...could have been a farmer, race track or whatever.

Well I think guns have been demonized so much that the task was easy for them. And I also think some shady deals were going on behind closed doors.

I can't prove that but I spoke with some of the county oh-fishy-als and some things just didn't sit well with me.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

You stop when the template/regulations are adhered to. The Genesee range has not been asked to do anything beyond the rules set out by the templates. If the CFO didn't enforce the rules evenly across the board, how would there be any accountability.

"Oh SPFGR, thanks for adhering to the rules even though Genesee was given a buy."

Now if the CFO goes beyond the templates and starts adding conditions that are not required, then cry foul. But if you are only expected to make the same improvement as all other ranges, what's the issue?

Exactly what did the Lawyer say could be the positive outcome of the case?

Accidents will happen.
They always do.
More severe rules will be implemented.
And it will become intolerable.
It already is.
The Genesee bar kept being raised with every inspection.
The bar will never be lowered or kept in the same spot for too long.
When they take control via safety excuses, government knows no limits.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Accidents will happen.
They always do.
More severe rules will be implemented.
And it will become intolerable.
It already is.
The Genesee bar kept being raised with every inspection.
The bar will never be lowered or kept in the same spot for too long.
When they take control via safety excuses, government knows no limits.

SPFGR is 4800 members strong and operating just fine under the same guidelines as Genesee, and guess what? All the ranges are open.

Next inspection will be in 4 years unless a new range or significant changes are made. There will probably be some improvement needed in 4 years but that is the nature of any regulated business/operation where safety is concerned.

[brendan's dad]

Again,

What did the Lawyer say could be the possible positive outcome?

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Again,

What did the Lawyer say could be the possible positive outcome?

I don't know.

[brendan's dad]

The Lawyer wasn't at the last general meeting to give an update on the court case? Talk about going on "blind faith"

No wonder Members are getting fed up. Hard to see your dues being payed to a lawyer as opposed to making range improvements. Especially if you are not being kept informed on the process or part of the decision.

[coachman]

Do you have to upgrade your house every time they change the building codes? No because they have laws to protect against that. Them same laws should protect every other operation in Canada where it is a gun range or a shopping mall. The only time you have to conform to the new rule is when you up grade. This is the law. It is nice to see somebody standing up for there rights but they are paying for both side of the fight and the CFO has more of there money.

[RUSTY262]

Will a win be able to force the CFO to provide a certification for the range?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by coachman

Do you have to upgrade your house every time they change the building codes? No because they have laws to protect against that. Them same laws should protect every other operation in Canada where it is a gun range or a shopping mall. The only time you have to conform to the new rule is when you up grade. This is the law. It is nice to see somebody standing up for there rights but they are paying for both side of the fight and the CFO has more of there money.

So if I opened a oil or construction company in Alberta in the 1970's, by your account I should be able to operate under 1970's labor and safety regulations?

Ranges are businesses that offer a product to consumers; some are for profit and others are for non-profit. All fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the provincial CFO. The Firearms Act empowers the CFO's to regulate range requirements and issues certifications. The regulations are reviewed and updated regularly to reflect new technology, safety practices, and research.

The CFO did not close Genesee range, Genesee executive closed the range because they refuses to meet the standard required for certification. Without certification the insurance policy is void and injury liability would not be covered.

[coachman]

There is a little difference between labour laws and property rights.
The ranges are suppose to be regulated by the Alberta Government not the feds, this would make it different to deal with the CFO's Are CFO are fed's not Alberta government employees. And it is also my understanding in talking to the CFO that ranges only need to be certified for use by Government of Canada employees and restricted firearms. You do not need a certified range for your long guns. How else can we hunt? My NFA insurance applies as long as I any legally using my guns.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by coachman

Do you have to upgrade your house every time they change the building codes? No because they have laws to protect against that. Them same laws should protect every other operation in Canada where it is a gun range or a shopping mall. The only time you have to conform to the new rule is when you up grade. This is the law. It is nice to see somebody standing up for there rights but they are paying for both side of the fight and the CFO has more of there money.

So that would mean you'd be okay with all those 1960's schools and businesses being filled with asbestos, right?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by coachman

There is a little difference between labour laws and property rights.
The ranges are suppose to be regulated by the Alberta Government not the feds, this would make it different to deal with the CFO's Are CFO are fed's not Alberta government employees. And it is also my understanding in talking to the CFO that ranges only need to be certified for use by Government of Canada employees and restricted firearms. You do not need a certified range for your long guns. How else can we hunt? My NFA insurance applies as long as I any legally using my guns.

All provinces were given the option to designate there own CFO or be staffed federally. Ontario, Quebec, and I believe PEI(???)opted for provincial CFO's and everyone else went Federal.

Government of Canada employees (RCMP, DND, etc) must have range executive and CFO approval if they are operating outside the rules of the range (ie advancing targets, prohibited magazines etc.)

Ranges have to be certified for the use of Restricted/ Prohibited as the law states that they can only be used at a certified range. As I said earlier, Genesee or any range for that matter, can open non-restricted ranges without certification, but in almost all cases the range insurance will be void.

And your NFA insurance doesn't mean squat to the range. If you are injured and make a claim, the NFA insurance company will then go after the range insurance company for damages. If the range insurance is invalid due to no certification then the range itself will be liable; no difference than vehicle insurance.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

All provinces were given the option to designate there own CFO or be staffed federally. Ontario, Quebec, and I believe PEI(???)opted for provincial CFO's and everyone else went Federal.

Government of Canada employees (RCMP, DND, etc) must have range executive and CFO approval if they are operating outside the rules of the range (ie advancing targets, prohibited magazines etc.)

Ranges have to be certified for the use of Restricted/ Prohibited as the law states that they can only be used at a certified range. As I said earlier, Genesee or any range for that matter, can open non-restricted ranges without certification, but in almost all cases the range insurance will be void.

And your NFA insurance doesn't mean squat to the range. If you are injured and make a claim, the NFA insurance company will then go after the range insurance company for damages. If the range insurance is invalid due to no certification then the range itself will be liable; no difference than vehicle insurance.

Oddly enough, the RCMP that we rented out our ranges to seemed to think that they could advance forward of the firing line, even though our range rules prohibit this, and there was no CFO approval for this. They didn't think that they had to abide by the rules. They found out differently.

[coachman]

My range has NFA insurance

[coachman]

"So that would mean you'd be okay with all those 1960's schools and businesses being filled with asbestos, right?"
It is my understanding that as long as it is not touched it does not pose a problem. That why we still have schools in Alberta with Asbestos in them. What about all those old houses that have asbestos in the floor tiles and dry wall mud. Do you see the government going in to homes a telling people they have to take it out. Every thing is good until you make changes then you have to bring it up to code.

[brendan's dad]

Well I feel very fortunate that I am not a Member at Genesee, cause it sounds like a long, uphill battle that nobody seems to know what the prize will be if they make it to the top. If the court court case is a matter of pride and spite on behalf of the executive, I feel sorry for the Members that just want to enjoy the range.

On the upside with a court win, ranges around the province will have some dirt and building supplies forsale based on the newly drafted CFO/Genesee Templates. I wonder if the other provinces will accept the CFO/Genesee Templates?????? Interesting times.

[catnthehat]

Please keep this thread to discussion on the range in question.
Asking finances on an open forum about any club BTW, is the club's business nobody else's
Cat

[RUSTY262]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Please keep this thread to discussion on the range in question.
Asking finances on an open forum about any club BTW, is the club's business nobody else's
Cat

I think that was a fair comment since a well run range will attract sufficient members to be able to afford the upkeep costs involved

[Faststeel]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The rules are constantly changing, according to the CFO this is to keep up with new technology in firearms and ammunition. I for one an not familiar with technological advances that are making projectiles significantly more dangerous, at much greater distances, than they were a few years ago. Given that ballistics are not advancing significantly anymore, I am not all that convinced that there is merit to this excuse.

Could not agree more, there are mountains of earth moved at Spruce grove and it is not safe enough, un believable
'